What's In It for the Snake? Serpents of Desire, Part 5

Forbidden Fruit and the assassination attempt.

The Torah describes the snake as being sly or devious. But whenever we talk about someone acting in a sly or devious way, we always mean that they are sly and devious in pursuit of some goal. With the snake, that piece of the puzzle is missing. We know that he is sly, but that all that the text says about him. We have no clue what his motive for the crime might be. To put it succinctly: "What's in it for the snake?"

If the Torah doesn't bother telling us about the snake's motivation, we might conclude that it is because the missing information is so obvious it hardly bears mention.

I'd like to argue that the snake's motivation is indeed rather clear. It's just a matter of seeing his temptation in context. For in fact, the serpent doesn't come out of nowhere with his offer of fruit to Eve. There is a history to that offer. And discerning that history, I think, is a key to really understanding not just the snake, but the entire story of the Forbidden Fruit as a whole.

WHERE DOES OUR STORY BEGIN?

Most of us are used to thinking that the story of the Forbidden Fruit begins at the start of chapter 3, when the serpent shows up, engages Eve in conversation and tempts her to eat what she shouldn't be eating. But in truth, that's not the beginning of the story. The story actually begins way back in the middle of Genesis, chapter two, where the Tree of Knowledge is first introduced, and the command to avoid it is first given:

Out of the ground God caused to grow every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food; the Tree of Life in the middle of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (2:9). And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying 'Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely. But of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall not eat...'(2:16-17).

Why does Adam's search for a mate interrupt the story of the Tree of Knowledge?

The reason it's easy to miss the fact that the story begins all the way back in chapter 2, is because after these two verses appear and introduce the trees, the text inexplicably digresses. In the verses that follow, God declares that "it is not good for man to be alone," and the Almighty then sets about trying to find a helpmate for him. The Almighty creates all the beasts of the field and parades them before Adam. Adam names all the creatures, but has no success finding a mate among them. Finally, the Lord puts Adam to sleep and takes a rib from him, out of which He builds Eve. And only then -- after the text tells us about the creation of both Eve and the animals -- does the story return to the Forbidden Fruit. Our familiar snake comes along, offers the fruit to Eve, and the rest is history.

All in all, it's a strange path for the text to take. Why does Adam's search for a mate interrupt the story of the Tree of Knowledge? At face value, it would seem more logical to get the creation of Eve and the animals out of the way first, and then begin talking about the Tree of Knowledge; that way, the narrator can bring each story to its conclusion without interruption. But for some reason, the Torah doesn't do this. It places the creation of the animals and Eve right in the middle of the Tree of Knowledge narrative. Why?

Let's begin by examining this "digression" a little more closely. The truth is, the story it tells is quite bizarre in its own right. Put yourself, for a moment, in the "shoes" of the Almighty. Imagine that you had created Adam and were then concerned that he not be all alone. You decide he needs a helpmate. What's the next thing you would do?

You'd probably decide to create Eve.

But that's not what happens. Instead, the Almighty creates all the beasts of the field and brings them before Adam to see if he might find an appropriate mate among them. One by one, Adam rejects them. In the process of that effort, Adam names each of the animals. Now, let's stop a minute to ask: Why, exactly, did God have to perform this little experiment? Are we to believe that God, the Great Matchmaker in the Sky, couldn't figure out that a zebra wouldn't be a good match for Adam? And after the zebra didn't work out as a wife, was it really necessary to try the hippopotamus and the flamingo also? The experiment with the animals seems almost like a charade. Why do we need to hear about it?

MAYBE THE DIGRESSION IS REALLY PART OF THE STORY

The combined weight of these questions suggests that perhaps we have been too hasty in classifying God's "attempt" to find a mate for Adam as a digression. Apparently, this thread is not an interruption of the Tree of Knowledge narrative at all. Instead, it would seem to be an integral piece of the larger picture. But how so?

Here's the outline of a theory. It's only an outline, so don't jump out of your seats and scream at me quite yet; we'll flesh this out later. But I'd like to suggest that the creation of the beasts of the field -- and Adam's rejection of them -- is actually crucial to the entire Forbidden Fruit narrative. In particular, I am going to argue that it is entirely impossible to understand the snake and his temptation without all this.

Perhaps it was Adam's rejection of the animals in favor of Eve that propelled the snake into action...

We had been puzzled earlier about the snake's motive. He is "cunning," but to what end? Well, perhaps the Torah doesn't talk about the motivation of the snake because it's clear from context. The earlier story about possible companions for Adam, I would suggest, provides the missing motive for the snake. In other words, perhaps it was Adam's rejection of the animals in favor of Eve that propelled the snake into action...

Remember how God had brought all the "beasts of the field" [Hebrew: chayat hasadeh] before Adam to see if he could find a mate among them? It turns out that this phrase, chayat hasadeh, is relatively rare. It only appears in one other context in the entire Book of Genesis -- in the description of the snake. When we first meet this primal serpent, the Torah describes the creature as "more cunning than all the beasts of the field [chayat hasadeh]."

Perhaps that, indeed, is what "drives" him -- this walking, talking serpent. The representative of the animal world closest, as it were, to man -- was seeking to succeed where all other animals had failed. All the chayat hasadeh had been unsuccessful in providing a companion for Adam. The snake, perhaps, was more cunning than all the chayat hasadeh: He was seeking to convince mankind that at least one "beast of the field" could be his companion after all.

A fascinating and perplexing ancient Midrashic text seems to suggest precisely this. The Sages of the Midrash were puzzled, as we were, with the missing motivation of the serpent. What drives him? Their answer is shocking: They say that the snake was on an assassination mission. The snake, knowing that the forbidden fruit harbored the promise of death, hoped that Eve would pass the fruit to Adam before partaking herself. Why? Because according to the Midrash, the snake wanted to assassinate Adam and marry Eve.

At face value, the Midrash seems preposterous. "Assassinate Adam and marry Eve? What would the children look like!", you protest. But Midrashim are not all meant to be taken literally. The rabbis often have a way of conveying deeper truths in mysterious, allegorical garb. Perhaps the Midrash is trying, in its own inimitable way, to lead us towards the very conclusion we have gingerly been approaching ourselves: That somehow, the snake's offer of forbidden fruit follows naturally from the immediately preceding story about Adam's choice to reject the animals in favor of Eve. Perhaps, on some deep level, the animal world -- to speak anthropomorphically -- was leveling a challenge to Adam. What makes you so special? What makes you so different than us that you stand alone and require an Eve as your mate? We can be your soul-mates too...

IT IS NOT GOOD FOR MAN TO BE ALONE

Let's explore this notion a bit further:

The Almighty had given Adam dominion over the animal world. As such, he had been set apart from that world in a very fundamental way. Mankind, king of nature, was atop Creation - but he was all alone in this powerful and dominating position...

And God said: It is not good for man to be alone. I will make him a helpmate to join with him...

To be alone is truly a great temptation. All alone, in charge of a vast world of nature, Adam looks at himself and sees himself as different, in some fundamental way, from every other creature around him. A king, yes -- but a king who is not fully kin with his subjects. The temptation of loneliness is to seek solace where it ought not be sought. For Adam, perhaps, this would mean seeking companionship among the animals. Pretending, if only he could, that He is one of them.

The animal world, for its part, might be seen as only too happy to oblige. If animals could think rational thoughts -- if we could anthropomorphize the perspective of the animal world -- what opinions might they have about our dominion over them? If animals could challenge our right to dominate, how would they do so?

"Are you really so different from us, that you stand above us animals? At your core, aren't you really one of us?"

The implicit challenge of the animal world is: "Are you really so different from us, that you stand above us? At your core, aren't you really one of us?"

And it's not just a question that animals might be the ones asking. It's a question we could all ask ourselves, every time we exert control over an animal -- every time we harness an ox to a plow or saddle up a horse to ride upon:. "Who am I to do this?" "Am I really so different?"

In the eyes of the Midrash, perhaps, the snake gives a voice to these doubts. "Are you really so sure you need a human as a companion?", it whispers, "Why not choose a soul-mate from our world...?" We asked facetiously what the children of such a union might look like. But that's precisely the point. They would be "snake-men". The snake would have co-opted the world of man and made it part and parcel of the animal kingdom.

The Almighty gave Adam a chance to experience for himself how futile it would be to find real companionship in the animal world. It wasn't G-d, but Adam, who needed to be shown this. In allowing Adam to name -- or be intimate with -- the animals, G-d was seeking, perhaps, to "innoculate" mankind from the temptation he would soon face; to convince Adam through experience that he could never really be one with the animal world. Only after such a trial could he truly appreciate the unique compatibility of Eve -- "a bone from my bones; flesh from my flesh". And only after such a trial would he be ready for the challenge of the serpent -- 'aren't you one of us...?"

All this, of course, brings us back to a question we entertained earlier -- a question we've not yet answered question squarely, and perhaps now is the time to do so: "What, really, is the dividing line between man and animal?" The existence of the snake, we argued, presents this question to us in spades. The primal serpent walks. He talks. And he's clever. So in what sense is he really a snake and not a human? Why couldn't he be a fitting mate for mankind, after all?

The real answer to this question, I think, lies buried in the heart of our story. We'll try to begin unearthing it next week.

Rabbi Fohrman invites comments or questions from readers. Please use the comment section below. Rabbi Fohrman is now teaching a fascinating series of classes via the internet, and you can join the excitement. Check it out at www.jewishtextstudy.org.

Click here to watch a gripping one-minute trailer about Rabbi Fohrman's new series.

About the Author

Rabbi David Fohrman is the founder and CEO at Aleph Beta Academy. He is author of "The Beast that Crouches at the Door," finalist for the 2007 National Jewish Book Award, and "The Queen You Thought You Knew." Rabbi Fohrman seeks to open layers of meaning of Biblical text and to help the reader develop a relationship with the texts that make us who we are. For more of his work, see www.alephbeta.org.

Visitor Comments: 10

(9)
Mark Liedel,
April 1, 2012 2:52 PM

Rabbi, Is it possible that the serpent was female not male.

I have read your lessons many times and agree that Adam had to come to his own conclusions that he was entirely unique in the world. The ease with which Eve conversed with the serpent suggests to me that it was a female of that species. Eve did not feel threatened in it's presence. She seemed to be able to relate on a personal level with this creature which suggest to me a female to female conversation. "Girl talk" Eve being new to this world may have made her more susceptable to peer pressure or peer suggestion for want of better words. The serpent actually wanted Adam as a mate for he was placed as ruler over the animals. What better way for the serpent and it's kin to be exalted into prominence than marrying the head of all creation. I am only postulating here but it seems that rejection was not the serpents problem, rather it was the want/desire to be elevated above it's status that seems to be the problem. I think the serpent had hoped that Eve ate it first and suffered the consequence immediately. Adam was the one G_D had annointed. Is this a reasonable assumption. Kind regards Mark

M.D.,
August 5, 2012 2:36 PM

Adam was both male and female

Read the explanation of Adams nature in the commentaries on the Bible. Before Eve was separated from Adam he was a he/she. Both male and female. The fact that the serpent wanted him for a mate does not mean that the snake was female. After Eve/Adam are separated he goes for Eve.

(8)
JJ,
October 25, 2008 1:27 PM

intimate? chachamim think not...

"In allowing Adam to name -- or be intimate with -- the animals, G-d was seeking, perhaps, to "innoculate" mankind from the temptation..."
Adam was never 'intimate' with the animals. The verse the Rabbi must be referring to, (although unreferenced), 3:23. The Hebrew is as follows: 'vayomer ha'adam ZOS HA'PAAM eitzem meyatzay u'vasar mibsari...' - 'the man said THiS TiME bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh'.
Rashi says on this verse that 'malamed she'va adam al kol behema v'chiya v'lo niskararah d'ito b'hem' - 'we learn that man came upon all the animals and was cold of its time in them' which basically means he had had some experience of the animals prior to this point in the Narrative.
However, the chachamim comment on the Rashi that this experience of the animals was an intellectual one, one of seichel, and that Adam could not imagine iNTELLECTUALLY that he could be with any of the animals...
Point of clarification.
p.s. sorry for the small 'i's' throughout, key is broken.

(7)
Peter Gaffney,
April 23, 2006 12:00 AM

Dogs and Snakes

A number of people have suggested, only half-facetiously, that dogs (or, more rarely, cats) make better -- or at least more faithful and devoted -- companions than other people, particularly those of the opposite sex. By choosing Eve, Adam was choosing an equal -- not necessarily the obvious choice.

Might not the snake have wanted Eve (rather than Adam) to eat the fruit and die -- out of jealousy and a desperate desire to have Adam for itself? It's the more obvious outcome than that Eve would give the fruit to Adam.

(6)
Daniela,
March 19, 2006 12:00 AM

I tried very hard to keep this comment to myself....

... but my fingers itch too much. Yes, that's it! And the snake may have lost the first rounds, but is winning a few others. Check out the people that actually sleep with a dog or cat, and no one may dare criticize; or those that allow them to "kiss" their face; or those that leave a fortune to "pets". It happens that those sweethearts and animal lovers are often very vocal when a sweet child in a restaurant behaves as a child, that is, is not completely transparent, invisible, and silent; however I am completely sure that is just a totally random coincidence...

(5)
Anonymous,
March 13, 2006 12:00 AM

Snake symbolic of sex drive..

When A dam and E ve frolicked naked in the Garden oF EDEN... MAYBE THE SNAKE WAS A SYMBOL oF SEX DRIVE,,, BECAUSE IT WASNT TILL EVE SINNED..THAT THEY LEFT THE GARDEN.. AND EVE AND HER DESCENDANTS WERE TO GIVE BIRTH IN PAIN AND LABOUR... INNOCENCE LOST...

(4)
Joey,
March 13, 2006 12:00 AM

My thoughts---the snake, perhaps, represents the part of man drawn purely to the physical, the "just an animal" aspect, the nonspiritual id which wanted to be Man's "companion." God told us to enjoy the world, but gave us a restriction; so, when we were enjoying the apple (at the snake/id's promotion), we were doing it for ourselves sans God, and thus lost some of our connection to Him. Just my thoughts; I eagerly await the rest of your analysis. God bless!

(3)
Phoenix,
March 12, 2006 12:00 AM

Question

Referring to the title of this, "the dark side of paradise", why exactly is there a dark side to paradise? What was the point of God creating a dark side, when he could have just made it an all-good paradise?

(2)
Joey,
March 12, 2006 12:00 AM

You're just being cruel, Rabbi Fohrman. God bless!

(1)
Anonymous,
March 12, 2006 12:00 AM

Again, thank you for the deeper thoughts.

Thank you again for the deeper thoughts and for the "new ground" you are breaking. Keep it coming!

I just got married and have an important question: Can we eat rice on Passover? My wife grew up eating it, and I did not. Is this just a matter of family tradition?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah instructs a Jew not to eat (or even possess) chametz all seven days of Passover (Exodus 13:3). "Chametz" is defined as any of the five grains (wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rye) that came into contact with water for more than 18 minutes. Chametz is a serious Torah prohibition, and for that reason we take extra protective measures on Passover to prevent any mistakes.

Hence the category of food called "kitniyot" (sometimes referred to generically as "legumes"). This includes rice, corn, soy beans, string beans, peas, lentils, peanuts, mustard, sesame seeds and poppy seeds. Even though kitniyot cannot technically become chametz, Ashkenazi Jews do not eat them on Passover. Why?

Products of kitniyot often appear like chametz products. For example, it can be hard to distinguish between rice flour (kitniyot) and wheat flour (chametz). Also, chametz grains may become inadvertently mixed together with kitniyot. Therefore, to prevent confusion, all kitniyot were prohibited.

In Jewish law, there is one important distinction between chametz and kitniyot. During Passover, it is forbidden to even have chametz in one's possession (hence the custom of "selling chametz"). Whereas it is permitted to own kitniyot during Passover and even to use it - not for eating - but for things like baby powder which contains cornstarch. Similarly, someone who is sick is allowed to take medicine containing kitniyot.

What about derivatives of kitniyot - e.g. corn oil, peanut oil, etc? This is a difference of opinion. Many will use kitniyot-based oils on Passover, while others are strict and only use olive or walnut oil.

Finally, there is one product called "quinoa" (pronounced "ken-wah" or "kin-o-ah") that is permitted on Passover even for Ashkenazim. Although it resembles a grain, it is technically a grass, and was never included in the prohibition against kitniyot. It is prepared like rice and has a very high protein content. (It's excellent in "cholent" stew!) In the United States and elsewhere, mainstream kosher supervision agencies certify it "Kosher for Passover" -- look for the label.

Interestingly, the Sefardi Jewish community does not have a prohibition against kitniyot. This creates the strange situation, for example, where one family could be eating rice on Passover - when their neighbors will not. So am I going to guess here that you are Ashkenazi and your wife is Sefardi. Am I right?

Yahrtzeit of Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (1194-1270), known as Nachmanides, and by the acronym of his name, Ramban. Born in Spain, he was a physician by trade, but was best-known for authoring brilliant commentaries on the Bible, Talmud, and philosophy. In 1263, King James of Spain authorized a disputation (religious debate) between Nachmanides and a Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani. Nachmanides reluctantly agreed to take part, only after being assured by the king that he would have full freedom of expression. Nachmanides won the debate, which earned the king's respect and a prize of 300 gold coins. But this incensed the Church: Nachmanides was charged with blasphemy and he was forced to flee Spain. So at age 72, Nachmanides moved to Jerusalem. He was struck by the desolation in the Holy City -- there were so few Jews that he could not even find a minyan to pray. Nachmanides immediately set about rebuilding the Jewish community. The Ramban Synagogue stands today in Jerusalem's Old City, a living testimony to his efforts.

It's easy to be intimidated by mean people. See through their mask. Underneath is an insecure and unhappy person. They are alienated from others because they are alienated from themselves.

Have compassion for them. Not pity, not condemning, not fear, but compassion. Feel for their suffering. Identify with their core humanity. You might be able to influence them for the good. You might not. Either way your compassion frees you from their destructiveness. And if you would like to help them change, compassion gives you a chance to succeed.

It is the nature of a person to be influenced by his fellows and comrades (Rambam, Hil. De'os 6:1).

We can never escape the influence of our environment. Our life-style impacts upon us and, as if by osmosis, penetrates our skin and becomes part of us.

Our environment today is thoroughly computerized. Computer intelligence is no longer a science-fiction fantasy, but an everyday occurrence. Some computers can even carry out complete interviews. The computer asks questions, receives answers, interprets these answers, and uses its newly acquired information to ask new questions.

Still, while computers may be able to think, they cannot feel. The uniqueness of human beings is therefore no longer in their intellect, but in their emotions.

We must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to become human computers that are devoid of feelings. Our culture is in danger of losing this essential aspect of humanity, remaining only with intellect. Because we communicate so much with unfeeling computers, we are in danger of becoming disconnected from our own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of others.

As we check in at our jobs, and the computer on our desk greets us with, "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Today is Wednesday, and here is the agenda for today," let us remember that this machine may indeed be brilliant, but it cannot laugh or cry. It cannot be happy if we succeed, or sad if we fail.

Today I shall...

try to remain a human being in every way - by keeping in touch with my own feelings and being sensitive to the feelings of others.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...